Creative Director
|
Once we get to stats, things probably won't be changing. The backstory I've come up for Merisiel is actually pretty cool, I think, and it absolutely hinges on a low intelligence. It gives her a fun personality, and even with an 8 INT, she has more skill points than any of the other iconics to this point.
Valeros will not become a sword and shield fighter. That's a case of the art driving the design. Personally... a two-weapon fighter is, in many ways, a better option than a ranger; fighters certainly get enough bonus feats that it's easy to make him a two-weapon specialist.
So far, the changes have been limited to feat selection. Also: Since we designed Kyra and Merisiel before we had the art for them, there'll be some adjustments there. Merisiel became a much more dagger-focused rogue, I think, once we got in the art, which means her feats will be changing quite a bit around Pathfinder #2 time. EVENTUALLY, their stats will probably stabilize, but not right away.
I like how these guys are built including Merisiel. Int 8 for a rogue isn't necessarily all that bad, since you can put you're highest score in Dex instead and get better skill bonuses and attack bonus especially if you increase them later and you could put the 2nd highest score in Con for hp or Cha for diplomacy and bluff or something. Mersial was able to get a Con of 12, giving her some mre hit points, compensating for her race's penalty to Con. I don't necessarily agree with dodge for the feat, but it's not absolutely abysmal. Something like weapon finesse or improved initative would've definetly been better. Merisel is a decent character, and with some leveling could be even better. I'm interested to see the background of this character as well.
So I put down Heroey and pick up Lemmy Plitnick, the barely on-key bard whose mission in life is to find a way to defeat his constellational acne.My point is, in a Paizo AP, Lemmy doesn't live long enough to think about his acne. He gets whacked out in the first encounter, while he's still stringing his ukelale. He's fun for a break, in an off-campaign, but for AoW, you NEED Heroey, because Lemmy just doesn't cut it. It's a bummer, becuase if Paizo toned down their APs, then the min-maxer crowd would run roughshod over them, but if they don't, then poor Lemmy just has no place at all.
No arguing that kind of logic. I take your point.
No arguing that kind of logic. I take your point.So I put down Heroey and pick up Lemmy Plitnick, the barely on-key bard whose mission in life is to find a way to defeat his constellational acne.My point is, in a Paizo AP, Lemmy doesn't live long enough to think about his acne. He gets whacked out in the first encounter, while he's still stringing his ukelale. He's fun for a break, in an off-campaign, but for AoW, you NEED Heroey, because Lemmy just doesn't cut it. It's a bummer, becuase if Paizo toned down their APs, then the min-maxer crowd would run roughshod over them, but if they don't, then poor Lemmy just has no place at all.
That's true to some extent, but isn't it the DM's job to set the tone for the game? I'm running STAP and I want my characters to have backstories and not be overly optimized video game-y types. Therefore, while the campaign is tough, it's not as difficult as it could be. I feel that setting the tone -- both mechanically and thematically -- is the most important job of the DM.
El Skootro
I like how these guys are built including Merisiel. Int 8 for a rogue isn't necessarily all that bad, since you can put you're highest score in Dex instead and get better skill bonuses and attack bonus especially if you increase them later and you could put the 2nd highest score in Con for hp or Cha for diplomacy and bluff or something. Mersial was able to get a Con of 12, giving her some mre hit points, compensating for her race's penalty to Con. I don't necessarily agree with dodge for the feat, but it's not absolutely abysmal. Something like weapon finesse or improved initative would've definetly been better. Merisel is a decent character, and with some leveling could be even better. I'm interested to see the background of this character as well.
Doesn't weapon finesse require you to have a BAB +1 before you can take it?
Personally, I agree with Eyebite about this whole discussion, but it's so damn tempting to state why you like your style of character building.I am an old 1st edition gamer who loves the new 3.5 rules, I love converting our group's old 1st edition characters into 3.5 because their character development wasn't dependent on optimization.
My favorite character was a ranger who loved to try and talk circles around opponents. I would hate to post his stats and have people tell me he shouldn't spend skill points on a cross-class skill. He didn't do this because he was good at it, but it was very enjoyable role-playing
Sorry, I meant Lilith's opinion on the subject.
I should have known it was she who could take 4 pages of forum discussion and summarize it in 3 words: "Role vs Roll".
I don't want to come off sounding preachy, I really enjoy the newest edition, I just find it amusing that 1st edition gets tabbed with the "roll" edition, when so many of our early characters were truly "characters."
No arguing that kind of logic. I take your point.So I put down Heroey and pick up Lemmy Plitnick, the barely on-key bard whose mission in life is to find a way to defeat his constellational acne.My point is, in a Paizo AP, Lemmy doesn't live long enough to think about his acne. He gets whacked out in the first encounter, while he's still stringing his ukelale. He's fun for a break, in an off-campaign, but for AoW, you NEED Heroey, because Lemmy just doesn't cut it. It's a bummer, becuase if Paizo toned down their APs, then the min-maxer crowd would run roughshod over them, but if they don't, then poor Lemmy just has no place at all.That's true to some extent, but isn't it the DM's job to set the tone for the game? I'm running STAP and I want my characters to have backstories and not be overly optimized video game-y types. Therefore, while the campaign is tough, it's not as difficult as it could be. I feel that setting the tone -- both mechanically and thematically -- is the most important job of the DM.
El Skootro
Okay, I guess there's a case for arguing most points. ;) I just knew Lemmy had an outside shot at whupping Kyuss!
|
Given that the Iconics are primarily intended for beginner players unfamiliar with character building, wouldn't it be confusing to these new players to change feats and other character options between products?
I'm all for advancing the Iconics with each issue of Pathfinder, adding new feats etc, but I'd prefer already chosen feats remain fixed.
So I put down Heroey and pick up Lemmy Plitnick, the barely on-key bard whose mission in life is to find a way to defeat his constellational acne.My point is, in a Paizo AP, Lemmy doesn't live long enough to think about his acne. He gets whacked out in the first encounter, while he's still stringing his ukelale. He's fun for a break, in an off-campaign, but for AoW, you NEED Heroey, because Lemmy just doesn't cut it. It's a bummer, becuase if Paizo toned down their APs, then the min-maxer crowd would run roughshod over them, but if they don't, then poor Lemmy just has no place at all.
Valid point. But, and yes I imagine you know this but am everso good at belaboring the obvious and rambling and I make a mean pasta, it is all in the hands of the DM. Yes a novice DM may run wild over his PC's with a deadly AP, but a skilled or practiced DM will be able to take an adventure and mold it to his characters.
Really all I am trying to say is that some groups are going to be able to make truly 'cool' fleshed-out PC's and others are going to make video game heroes. It depends on the style of play more than the AP, methinks.
I want my characters to have backstories and not be overly optimized video game-y types.
You've made a large and seriously flawed assumption here. Don't feel bad about it; many people have already made it in this thread alone. (I just chose your post to quote because it was recent and easy to crop meaningfully.)
You have made the assumption that good roleplaying and interesting characters are mutually exclusive with optimized or powerful characters. This is wrong. This is so incredibly wrong that there's a specific term for this particular (wrong) assumption - "The Stormwind Fallacy".
Just because a character is well-built doesn't mean that they can't have an interesting back story or personality. It just so happens that players that focus on being effective are generally less likely to spend time fleshing out their character's personality.
Cory has the right idea here, but even here he's succumbing to the Fallacy in his second sentence here.
We Optimizer-Americans are a proud people, and perpetuation of the Stormwind Fallacy is deeply hurtful and insulting to us. Remember... powergamers are roleplayers, too.
Really it comes down to two types, those that are happy with their style of character building, and those who want to tell you why your style isn't as good as theirs.
I may like building quirky characters, but I've never had a character who didn't get a Con bonus whenever I have been able to switch initial stat rolls, including my Elves. Both ways are fine, in the big picture, we all just have to have fun and get along. Just as long as we don't have any of them second types with us. (insert whatever symbol equals heavysarcasm)
Wow! Lots of distention on this topic!
I had a great rogue that I used in Living Greyhawk.
Str:14
Int: 10
Wis:14
Dex:14
Con:14
Cha:10
That is 28 points in point buy, and totally rocked as a character. I had skill points out the wazoo, I could do anything sorta well, and I when I failed a save it was very memorable.
I think what I loved about this character is that he helped every other character shine at one point or another. This made him really fun to play.
I enjoy Dungeons and Dragons for getting to play WITH my friends, and this stupid rogue helped me do it.
|
Director of Narrative
|
Not really on topic, but this thread has turned, so eh...
Really it comes down to two types, those that are happy with their style of character building, and those who want to tell you why your style isn't as good as theirs.
I've a friend in a game I'm playing really press me about why I chose to wield a bastard sword two handed when I could just get a greatsword and get two extra points of damage. My answer was that I just liked the feel of the bastard sword better. It was a more elegant, yet deadly, weapon.
|
Not really on topic, but this thread has turned, so eh...
Really it comes down to two types, those that are happy with their style of character building, and those who want to tell you why your style isn't as good as theirs.I've a friend in a game I'm playing really press me about why I chose to wield a bastard sword two handed when I could just get a greatsword and get two extra points of damage. My answer was that I just liked the feel of the bastard sword better. It was a more elegant, yet deadly, weapon.
Should have told him that it's only one extra damage on average, though the max could be two more. Not a huge difference. In the end, it doesn't make a difference if you're wielding a dagger or a greatsword, it's the bonus damage and dice you add to it that matter.
Valeros will not become a sword and shield fighter. That's a case of the art driving the design. Personally... a two-weapon fighter is, in many ways, a better option than a ranger; fighters certainly get enough bonus feats that it's easy to make him a two-weapon specialist.
Fighters DO make the best two-weapon specialists. They can not only take the same feats that other two-weapon monkeys can (rangers and rogues...I suppose), but they can take them much faster. Not only that, they can also take nifty fighter-only feats such as Weapon Specialization and Weapon Supremacy from PH2.
Compared to the ranger and rogue, they will have a better chance to hit, better hit points, better AC, and better options.
I LIKE the idea of a TWF fighter. Valeros as an iconic works, and I think he'd work pretty well.
Sure, he's not that other greatsword-wielding brute that's running around duel-wielding Wis and Cha as dump stats and a Strength so high that it makes a storm giant cry, but it works.
Fighters DO make the best two-weapon specialists.
Well, yes and no. It's pretty much uncontested that, between the full BAB and oodles of feats, fighters are the easiest way to make a viable two-weapon fighting build. Having said that, the benefit of using two weapons for a fighter is questionable, whereas the benefit of using two weapons with a rogue is fairly well <i>obscene.</i>.
The math is fairly simple. On their face, two weapons and two-handed weapons don't have much of a difference - two handed weapons get 1.5x strength, two weapons get 1x and .5x strength. In terms of an attack with a greatsword at 18 strength and a TWF attack with two shortswords and the same strength, you've still got a net damage of 2d6+6. The only difference is in attack mods and DR considerations.
But the biggest source of damage for general fighter builds is traditionaly power attack - primarily because it's a very efficient source of damage. With a two-handed weapon, you've got a 2:1 damage:attack penalty ratio, which is very nice. When using power attack with TWF, however, you've only got your 1:1 bonus with your primary attack, and nothing with your off-hand attack except a penalty to hit.
Now, consider the rogue. His primary source of damage is sneak attack... which, you may recall, is a flat rate <i>per hit.</i>. So, using two weapons doubles the rogue's bonus damage in much the same way a two-handeded weapon doubles the fighter's.
Finally, there's the ranger. Ranger TWF is something that's always been somewhere between "inexplicable" and "absurd" in my book. There's no good thematic justification for it, other than Drizzt. There's no mechanical benefit to it. And the bonus feat parameters are self-defeating - you gain TWF feats regardless of your dex, but only when wearing light armor. The reason this breaks down is that you should generally try to make your armor's max dex bonus and your dex bonus as close as possible... and if you're going to be wearing light armor, then your <i>lowest</i> max dex bonus is +4, and if you meet that then you meet the dex prereq for everything except Greater TWF, which requires an extra point of dex. It's self-defeating.
Finally, as far as TWF sneak attack builds go, greenspawn sneaks are totally awesome and absolutely worth the ECL. Plus you don't have to worry about finding a good mini!
|
No arguing that kind of logic. I take your point.So I put down Heroey and pick up Lemmy Plitnick, the barely on-key bard whose mission in life is to find a way to defeat his constellational acne.My point is, in a Paizo AP, Lemmy doesn't live long enough to think about his acne. He gets whacked out in the first encounter, while he's still stringing his ukelale. He's fun for a break, in an off-campaign, but for AoW, you NEED Heroey, because Lemmy just doesn't cut it. It's a bummer, becuase if Paizo toned down their APs, then the min-maxer crowd would run roughshod over them, but if they don't, then poor Lemmy just has no place at all.
The problem with an 8 int rouge isn't skill points it's bonuses to search and disable device. The elf bonus to search mitigates this somewhat, but what good is finding the trap, if you can't disable it? Sure, you could avoid the trapped area, but sometimes you "have" to get around that door or down that corridor to get to the next part of the advneture. At low level most parties can't afford to be hit by a trap. After 4th level or so, it's less of a problem, but a low level rogue that can find and disable traps can make the difference between the party's success and failure. That's what bugs me. The 8 int really mkaes it hard for her to fulfil her role. Everyone in the party does have a job or role (doesn't matter what you call it). If they can't do their the job the whole party and the whole campaign can suffer.
|
I would point out that there are other sources of damage for TWF, which while they don't compare with power attack, still are good.
Weapon Specialization, improved critical, bursting weapons...
Give me a fighter with dual kukris making 4 attacks per round, criticaling on a 15+, twe weapon rend, and possibly some other goodness all by level 8, and not having to worry about setting up a sneak attack or the power attack penaltiesand I think it evens out over time.
Admitedly a good sneak attack can out damage it in certain conditions, but constant damage is a good thing
And before someone brings it up, yeah two-weapon rend isn't SRD so it is a bad example
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes a novice DM may run wild over his PC's with a deadly AP, but a skilled or practiced DM will be able to take an adventure and mold it to his characters.
Unfortunately, many skilled DMs also have JOBS, which prevent them from finding the time to revamp and remold each adventure; they want to be able to open the magazine and PLAY. Given infinite free time (or ANY free time, for that matter!), your statement is indeed correct. However, I am quite skilled and quite practiced, but also typically quite busy--and an absence of time does not automatically imply an absence of skill nor of practice. Certainly, while in the midst of game play, I don't want to be in a situation where I'm saying, "There are five creatures... wait, no, that'll kill you... um, there are THREE monsters..."
Yes a novice DM may run wild over his PC's with a deadly AP, but a skilled or practiced DM will be able to take an adventure and mold it to his characters.Unfortunately, many skilled DMs also have JOBS, which prevent them from finding the time to revamp and remold each adventure; they want to be able to open the magazine and PLAY. Given infinite free time (or ANY free time, for that matter!), your statement is indeed correct. However, I am quite skilled and quite practiced, but also typically quite busy--and an absence of time does not automatically imply an absence of skill nor of practice.
Agreed. Failure to communicate on my part. What I meant was you, as a practiced DM, are likely intimate with the type of game your players enjoy -- now obvioulsy you may not have the time to completely overhaul an adventure, but you are capable, as a practiced DM, of adjusting to your players on the fly (I know some are better at this than others, but most DM's seem to be able to improv at least a little).
More to the point is the fact you understand the style of play you and your friends best enjoy, even from a quick scanning you likely understand how an adventure may please or annoy your group, and as a skilled DM, you can smooth out those edges or focus in on the fun parts with little prep, just more in game focus.
Of course, even for the world's best DM, this is not going to be possible 100% time depending on actual adventure content.
As a footnote, I did completey forget about prep time in my previous post. But I did not intend for my post to become disparaging; it was not my intent to paint you as a unskilled DM, I was simply thinking out loud and talking abstractly.
I want my characters to have backstories and not be overly optimized video game-y types.You've made a large and seriously flawed assumption here. Don't feel bad about it; many people have already made it in this thread alone. (I just chose your post to quote because it was recent and easy to crop meaningfully.)
You have made the assumption that good roleplaying and interesting characters are mutually exclusive with optimized or powerful characters. This is wrong. This is so incredibly wrong that there's a specific term for this particular (wrong) assumption - "The Stormwind Fallacy".
I don't believe that they are mutually exclusive, but I do believe that optimizing a character limits roleplaying possibilities. It's pretty simple, actually. If I'm not concerned with having the most optimized character possible, my options for creating an interesting character are nigh limitless. As soon as I impose restrictions (such as "only take an even number of fighter levels" or "never give up a level of spellcasting" or somesuch), my options are limited. I'm hamstrung by a series of rules that my contradict the character I want to have.
Sorry I didn't spell out my justification in the above post; it was tangential to my main point about how a DM should set the tone for her campaign.
Cheers,
El Skootro
In order to give a party more of a chance without them having to hone their builds, just level them up one or two times more than the module is written for. Run the adventures that are a level or two below the party, then bump up the difficulty if necessary, or take away a chance to rest with a wandering monster. The game can be just as satisfying and can also still kill them if they don't play smart.
If that is too much, just give them max H.P instead.
That way they won't be so paralysed with fear that they try to min max to avoid a T.P.K, and the mechanics can be more of an armature for a story.
More to the point is the fact you understand the style of play you and your friends best enjoy, even from a quick scanning you likely understand how an adventure may please or annoy your group, and as a skilled DM, you can smooth out those edges or focus in on the fun parts with little prep, just more in game focus.
Extremely well said. I think you've struck perfectly to the heart of the matter right there. It's even more of a trick to know when people are in the mood for an AoW-style kill-fest, or maybe something a bit more lighthearted (like maybe one of Logue's theatrical romps). I've gone so far in the past as to make sure everyone had at least 2 sets of characters (one set of optimized Mevers-style killers, and a second set of loosy-goosy "Lemmy" guys for when people need a break from saving the world).
The only mechanical advantage that a rogue gets is sneak attack, which doesnt (or cannot) apply to every situation. Couple this with a lower BAB than a fighter, and then finally slap on the TWF penalties and you have a smaller chance to hit than the fighter does.
Rogues are also softer targets (less hit points, lower Fortitude save, and often lower AC).
A few well-placed hits might force the rogue to duck out of the fight, if he hasnt already been dropped.
If you are the classic rogue with Weapon Finesse, well, thats just one more feat you had to burn to help give yourself a slight edge over the other rogue that didnt (unfortunately, since you dont apply your Dex mod to damage, you still wont be doing as much as the fighter).
Rangers, however, get no mechanical advantage over the fighter (other than automatic TWF goodness as long as they arent wearing Medium or Heavy armor). They have a lower Hit Die and are pretty much relegated to light armor unless they actually want to spend the feats.
On another note, I think it is funny that the original poster complained that giving a sorcerer reinforces the "blaster mentally", but went around and made a cliche number-crunched dwarven fighter (because "no one" plays a human except to get the bonus feat).
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Alright - not that this is going to change anyone's mind, as people appear to be staunchly in either the "story/flavor-centric" camp or the "optimal build camp," but the Blog has a new post regarding Merisiel.
Backstory is cool, explains (kind of) why she has an 8 for Int. I think it's awesome - she solves her problems with daggers first, and logic later. Could make for a very memorable character.
I like her. I don't care if she has a few less skill points, or took what many consider to be a poor feat. She sounds like a really cool character.
You know what I'm thinking--the proof's in the pudding. When the entire rune lords AP is out, let's have someone (or preferrably more than one group) on the boards play-test it with the iconics as written. We'll have plenty of feedback for non-iconics; some of the latter are bound to be pretty well optimized. Let's see if the iconics can survive at all without fudging things in their favor, or if they end up with a TPK every adventure. If they do OK, then maybe Lemme DOES have a chance against Kyuss! If not, maybe Mevers is right--Lemme needs to stay home if you want to run Paizo APs as written.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I don't know if that's a necessarily fair test.
The iconics, as stated, are geared for beginners. The APs aren't (at least in my opinion).
The APs, thus far, have required some pretty creative solutions in parts and have had some very tough encounters. Maybe not the best intro to the game for a newbie.
I was actually considering giving one or more iconics a go in other adventures, not just Pathfinder or the GameMastery Modules to see how well they fare.
|
Creative Director
|
Jason Bulmahn keeps making noises like he's gonna start up a campaign here for us editors set in Paizoland. In writing Merisiel's backstory for the blog earlier today, I pretty much decided she's gonna be my character for that game. She'll probably have a somewhat different stat array... but her low score WILL be Intelligence.
I'll doubtless start up a campaign journal for that one too... and we'll just see how far a low Intelligence rogue can go!
|
|
Jason Bulmahn keeps making noises like he's gonna start up a campaign here for us editors set in Paizoland. In writing Merisiel's backstory for the blog earlier today, I pretty much decided she's gonna be my character for that game. She'll probably have a somewhat different stat array... but her low score WILL be Intelligence.
I'll doubtless start up a campaign journal for that one too... and we'll just see how far a low Intelligence rogue can go!
Absolutely awesome artwork on Merisiel - Wayne has outdone himself! And I like your take on human - raised elves James (or whom ever in the team came up with it) - the Forlorn. Very cool.
|
Creative Director
|
Absolutely awesome artwork on Merisiel - Wayne has outdone himself! And I like your take on human - raised elves James (or whom ever in the team came up with it) - the Forlorn. Very cool.
The Forlorn actually originally came from Rich Pett; there's one of them in Pathfinder #2, and the concept was just too nifty to leave with one lonely NPC.
Making Merisiel one of them was me, though, as was her little backstory in the blog post. She's such a trooper! It's not her fault that the bad guys end up dead when things go wrong!
Well, I've stayed out of this discussion up till this point. I'm not much off a max/min style player. I'd much rather have a character who has a backstory and a few quirks than one who can run roughshod through the campaign without fear. I'm known in my groups for my brilliant (and frequent) character deaths...since not all my ideas turn out to be great adventurers. Having seen the iconic background, I think that she's a great character..."not the sharpest knife in the drawer" indeed! I might try her out myself to see exactly how things work with a not-so-smart rogue in the party.
FFB
|
|
...I fail to understand why efficient character building is so often decried as 'min-maxing', 'powergaming', or 'munchkinism'...While I do admit that in most cases the changes were fairly reasonable,...I think the changes to Valeros proposed by mevers edge into...the boundaries of "powergaming" and "munchkinism".
Mostly because it wasn't just a minor changing of a feat or two, but a complete and utter alteration of the character, with no rational beyond "let's make him tactical" and "he should be dwarven, because he's wearing armor".
Point taken; taking an archetype from existing artwork, then improving the character by changing their race, is optimisation that's out of line with the original intent...
What should be beyond reproach, is any rewrite which improves the character's power/utility/flexibility, while leaving the concept alone.
Having a 2-weapon fighter use twin shortswords (rather than longsword/shortsword, longsword/dagger, etc) so he can take Focus (and, later, Specialisation) for half the feat slots, is an example of streamlined design thinking, that is not only more powerful (rules-wise), but is actually justifiable 'in-character'. The character prefers the look of the matched blades, since they came as a pair, he feels more balanced with weapons of equal length and weight, and he only has to find one tutor, who is a master of the short-sword.
I see the game rules as reflecting the 'reality' of the campaign setting, and although the relevant numbers should be 'invisible' to all PCs and NPCs, they should have some instinctive idea of which methods work best for them, and what is generally practical and available to learn.
For example, as a child Valeros may well have been playing 'soldiers' with his chums, picked up a pair of his father's longswords and swung them round his head to fool around, only to find them far too heavy and unbalanced, and have a painful accident.
"Crikey!", he thinks, "I nearly took my ears off!".
After having his head bandaged, and a stern warning from his mother (plus ridicule from his friends), he remembers the lesson for the rest of his life...
"Short blades, same size, short blades, same size..."
If I'm playing a CN rogue who is seeing a lot of combat, taking a couple levels of fighter does, IMHO, make perfect sense. Taking levels of barbarian, while potentially superior mechanically, doesn't necessarily make sense, and thus is "min-maxing" to me.
Fighter levels are always easy to justify, since every culture in history has required warriors of some kind, whereas some classes (eg monk, paladin) have tended to be viewed as very culture-specific.
Plus, every PC gets into fights as part of their adventures, whether they want to or not, so taking a Fighter level, even for a wizard, could be seen as 'on-the-job' training...I know many DMs who have barred some classes, such as monk, as being out of synch with their campaign. Which is fair enough, but they don't always play it both ways. I was most put out to have a cohort beaten to death by a Kuo-Toa Monitor in 'Return to T.O.E.E.', and could not see how a tribe of degenerate underground fish-men could learn kung-fu when half the people of the Flanaess were barred...
DMs also do not like players taking levels out of the blue, in classes which are seen as hereditary (like barbarian or sorcerer), or which are described as being the result of long training (eg wizard).
That last case has been addressed in Order of the Stick, when Elan decides that he'll use that week's XP to take a level in wizard, and Vesuvius is apoplectic that he had to devote a century to learning the same level. I confess, I have to agree...
I understand your argument, Snorter, but there are other factors you haven't considered. What if Valeros runs into a creature that can't be harmed by piercing weapons? Using that longsword for slashing damage remains an option, whereas if he is limited to two short swords, he has to improvise. Similarly, against a high AC opponent that he can't seem to hit regularly with TWF, he can switch to using that longsword two-handed retaining the extra point of damage PLUS augmenting it with additional strength damage, which can't be done with a short sword since it's a light weapon.
Now, you could argue that if such were the case a mace or other weapon might be more suitable. But it wouldn't be as cool as the image of that burly fighter with two broad blades grasped in his fists....
I've mentioned before (here and elsewhere) that I don't like the "elite array" for PCs. I think a build based on a 28 point buy would be better.
Why?
Most NPCs in the magazine that I've seen so far are built using the elite array (with some mooks getting the nonstandard array). Using a 28 point build elevates your PCs just a bit above the norm. Heroes should have that extra edge.
Merisiel could still have that Int of 8 if you wanted, but she could also have a higher Dex or Con or whatever.
I agree that PCs should have a higher build than elite. My personal preference is a 32 point array, to be honest. Had we thought of it before hand, we might have used a 32 point array for the iconics. We might even go back and do that, to be honest; makes a lot of sense to me.
Is a point build system open content?
el skootro
I agree that PCs should have a higher build than elite. My personal preference is a 32 point array, to be honest. Had we thought of it before hand, we might have used a 32 point array for the iconics. We might even go back and do that, to be honest; makes a lot of sense to me.Is a point build system open content?
el skootro
I don't think so, but at the same time I do not think WoTC can (or would) do anything if Paizo made characters with attributes that seemed to add up to a 32 point buy -- I don't even know if they can lay claim to character gen as exclusive IP.
The d20 system licensing agreement expressly prohibits talking about character creation. That's why rolling stats, experience tables, and starting gold aren't in the SRD - they aren't OGL. There's an FAQ on the Wizards site that notes that you could absolutely publish an alternate XP table if you wanted to... but you couldn't say what it was for.
Note, however, that OGL products <i>talking about</i> character creation is an entirely different thing than OGL products with characters created using that same "must-not-be-named" system. You can publish characters you generated with the PHB or any other homebrew system, but you can't talk about how you created them.
I Read through the first page worth of comments .... then realized that their have been nearly 200 posts on this thread! I'm sorry but thats a bit much to read as by appearances many of the posts were somewhat lengthy.
In general I have to say I was disapointed with the pregens. I might not have been so bad if not for some mistakes on both the Hollow's last hope and on the pregens in the book that left me lacking faith in their construction. simple put. the skills are messed up unless their being used somehow in a manner not present on the pregen pages (like languages). It bugged me enough I ran the numbers and in the back of the crown of the... book the elf is the only one with the proper skill points. Its like you forgot that humans have extra skill points. This made me look at the hollow's last hope pregens and they had the opposite problem. the humans were right nad the elf looks like was shorted severaly.
I can live with the nuances of some of the feat selections and stuff like that. the errors made me feel that the pregens were just slapped together not alot of thought put into them other than their flavor concepts.
I was surprised to see the length of this thread! But to be honest, it's an issue that, upon reading through the the Pre-Gens at the back of Crown of the Kobold King, I had felt similarly to the opinion expressed at the heading of this post.
I never would of thought it, but my players and I play something of a min-max "roll-play" game. I'd like to hope that I haven't neglected crucial roleplaying elements in the APs I've been running, but when push comes to shove, the experience comes--mostly, and I thank the great writers at Paizo for not making it always--after the thick of combat. And really, that's what all those rules are for, determining which character can achieve what results. Otherwise, does it matter that it's D&D? Couldn't it be White Wolf, or Tri-Stat?
That said, I agree that if every iconic were made to be optimally built, you'd only have as many characters available as you might be able to max out their "trick". Wizards with greater spell focus and an 18 Intelligence become the standard, not the exception. Nothing special about a character anymore. No personal obstacles to overcome. No challenge, no fun.
Back to the thread at hand, though. (I, apparently, have no focus.) While the iconics seem to suffer from a faint lack of optimization, I think it's solely a result of the feat choices. But feats do define a character, in respects to their capabilities. But, isn't Valeros more interesting with two-weapon fighting than improved trip? Yep. Do the characters have a more "defined" feel when some of them have "active" feats like Dodge or Combat Expertise, as opposed to "passive" feats like Improved Initiative, or Skill Focus? Definitely.
I agree with the Paizo representative (Jeremy Walker, I think?) who said that the characters should be easy to play, without having to shuffle through the PHB, trying to figure out how much extra damage Power Attack does when wielding a two-handed weapon, or when does Combat Casting give you a bonus to your Concentration check. These characters have a "beginner" tag on them, and I think it's for the best. People who are familiar with D&D, inside-out, aren't going to bother using these iconics, because they'll build characters up to their speed, anyway. For Steve, Tony, Lisa, and Mike, who just chipped in from their tips working at Fridays to pick up the core books and a module, and have never even heard of THAC0, these pre-gens are likely to be a welcome addition to the gaming table.
As an aside, I'd like to see more pre-gens packed in with the game mastery cards. Say, one per pack. Might even boost sales of the cards...nudge, nudge.
So, in closing, I'm hoping to see more iconics, maybe with some changes to the difficulty of play, but generally being there to encourage new gamers--and each of us was once--to try out this fun and exciting game that's absolutely devoured our souls for all eternity...erm, I mean, a kind-hearted game that fills a reasonable amount of time per week, for us to gather, eat healthy food, use good, clean language, in a clean and well-ventilated environment...yeah...
|
|
Let's see, give Valeros two short swords and change his weapon focus from long sword to short sword. Next switch his wisdom (right now, he's a sitting duck for sleep, color spray, chram person, etc.) with either intelligence or charisma, your pick. Done. He's basically the same character only better.
Next Meresiel. Switch out dodge(not a good feat for newbs since even veteran players often forget to declare their dodge)for point blank shot or improved initiative, your choice. Switch out her intelligence and charisma. Done
Seoni. Switch out dodge and skill focus for toughness and improved initiative. Exchange mage armor for sleep. Done
Kyra. She's okay as is. Leave her be.
I agree that PCs should have a higher build than elite. My personal preference is a 32 point array, to be honest. Had we thought of it before hand, we might have used a 32 point array for the iconics. We might even go back and do that, to be honest; makes a lot of sense to me.
This is what I use as well. I think the "elite array" is a little less than elite. All my players seem to be happy with the 32 points, though I think one guy would like to see it lower. Most of the time the highest score I see is 16. There has been the occasional 18 (usually Dex), but then the player has always left something at 8 (usually Wis).
After reading all these posts, I was starting to think maybe I was a bit of a power gamer because of it...but then I remembered the last time I played, my character was a human ranger 3/fighter 4 (and this was 3.0), whose Intelligence was as high as his Strength, who fought with a bastard sword and short sword (or sometimes with bastard sword & shield, or sometimes with the bastard sword 2-handed), and whose best feats were Dodge and Expertise.
So yeah, I like higher stats. Maybe it's to make up for all the other crazy choices I make.
Randy
I cheat like hell for my players.
Scores are 18 16 14 12 10 8
Arrange as desired.
I use the same for N.P.Cs.
Works for me.
I cheat like hell for my players.
Scores are 18 16 14 12 10 8
Arrange as desired.
I use the same for N.P.Cs.Works for me.
That doesn't seem over powered but it does take some of the fun decision making out of players' hands when they reach ability score bump levels. Why not make two of those odd numbers so that they have tough choices about what to advance into the next bonus level (or remove a penalty)?
Something like:
18 15 14 12 10 9.